The primary purpose of code review is to find code that will be hard to maintain

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Purpose of Code Review: Single vs Multiple Goals

  • Many disagree with framing “finding hard-to-maintain code” as the primary goal.
  • Alternatives proposed as primary: knowledge transfer, correctness/bug reduction, design sanity checks, security, or simply “having a conversation about the change.”
  • Several argue there is no single purpose; code review is inherently multi-purpose and context-dependent (team size, trust level, domain, regulation).

Maintainability vs Bug-Finding

  • Some support the maintainability-first framing: if code is clear and simple, bugs are easier to spot and fixes are safer.
  • Others stress they routinely find real bugs in review (logic errors, edge cases, security and performance issues) and see this as central, not incidental.
  • Multiple comments push back on the idea that examining code “cannot” find bugs, calling this either wrong in practice or a miscommunicated theoretical statement.

Knowledge Sharing & Ownership

  • Strong recurring theme: code review as knowledge transfer and shared ownership.
  • Reading PRs keeps teammates aware of system changes, avoids surprises, and raises the “bus factor.”
  • Some teams even create PRs purely as a communication artifact, even when merging immediately.

Process, Workflow, and Culture

  • Views diverge sharply based on workflow:
    • Structured design-first processes vs “design in the PR.”
    • Small, high-trust teams vs large, low-trust or regulated environments.
    • Async GitHub-style reviews vs synchronous, meeting-style reviews.
  • Code review can be healthy (teaching, collaboration) or toxic (gatekeeping, status battles, performative approvals). Team culture and guidance are seen as crucial.

Testing vs Review

  • Many emphasize that tests, not review, should provide the main correctness guarantees.
  • Good reviews also check for the existence and quality of tests or test plans.
  • Some note that review sometimes catches integration issues tests might miss, especially where documentation and system boundaries are weak.

AI and the Changing Landscape

  • Several note AI-generated code and AI-assisted reviews increase volume and “slop,” making careful human review harder.
  • Some foresee PR reviews becoming unsustainable or transformed; others insist humans must still ensure understanding and maintainability of AI-written code.